Who's side are they on?

AaronAgassi
Posts: 54
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Who's side are they on?

What do you make of it? I currently find myself embroiled in debate with nominal Atheists seemingly spouting the most convoluted Pro-Life apologetics! http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php?topic=8103.0


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Just checked my atheists

Just checked my atheists manual and don't see "pro-choice" there.

 

 

 


AaronAgassi
Posts: 54
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Context, much? Don't bruise

Context, much? Don't bruise your index clicking the link! No manual will spell out that connection for you, either.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
What is the point you are

What is the point you are trying to raise?


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:What is the

Marquis wrote:

What is the point you are trying to raise?

 

I believe its "Without religion, Pro-life Atheists have no leg to stand on"

 

... which, i think i agree with

What Would Kharn Do?


AaronAgassi
Posts: 54
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
True, but no, he has

True, but no, he has successfully derailed my topic.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Don't believe in a soul but

 

You could argue a zygote has a potential intellect that should be taken into account. Where does it end, though? With an egg? A sperm? I agree with you Aaron that it would be nice to have the moment of life defined but pro-lifers of any persuasion will always argue that point right back to the instant of conception. It's a tough topic.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: You

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

You could argue a zygote has a potential intellect that should be taken into account. Where does it end, though? With an egg? A sperm? I agree with you Aaron that it would be nice to have the moment of life defined but pro-lifers of any persuasion will always argue that point right back to the instant of conception. It's a tough topic.

The Catholics argue it back to the moment of ejaculation.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Yes

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

You could argue a zygote has a potential intellect that should be taken into account. Where does it end, though? With an egg? A sperm? I agree with you Aaron that it would be nice to have the moment of life defined but pro-lifers of any persuasion will always argue that point right back to the instant of conception. It's a tough topic.

The Catholics argue it back to the moment of ejaculation.

 

Well catholics are bunch of complete wankers so no surprises there...funny the egg gets ignored.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


AaronAgassi
Posts: 54
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Indeed, many argue a prior

Indeed, many argue a prior history of the soul, in reincarnation or in Heaven, but even aside therefrom, does every gamete have the right to recombination? Does every morsel of food have the right to be eaten only by pregnant women? Does every wine maker and pornographer have the right to inspire only unprotected sex? Before potential, is there potential potential, and potential potential potential, all the way back to Telos, or final cause, being the mysterious intent of God? Pro-Lifers argue for the moment of conception, as then for the first time, in the zygote, all complete readiness has come together, that is initial substance and complete instructions. In other words: that conception occurs at the moment of conception! What brilliant tautology.

 

The gravest issue, however, is of this poison of dementia as has seemingly infected the very law of the land. That is what we argue over here: http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php?topic=8103.0 in regard to my petition here: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/surgeon-general-please-break-the-healthcare-deadlock Please sign.

 


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Rather than debating

Rather than debating abortion - which is a personal tragedy that only king size ASSHOLES will be "opinionated" about unless they are involved in the problem - I would recommend some education on the subject of contraception.

 

It really isn't that hard to avoid unwanted pregnancies.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


AaronAgassi
Posts: 54
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Absolutely! Similarly,

Absolutely! Similarly, automobile accidents are generally avoidable, and a personal tragedy that only an asshole would argue about. So let's never consider better hospitals and ambulances, because accident prevention is always best.

 

I mean, for another example, when you get a cavity or abscess from not brushing or flossing thoroughly enough, the proper way to accept responsibility is to refuse all dental care and to die needlessly in agony. Everybody knows that!


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
AaronAgassi

AaronAgassi wrote:

Absolutely! Similarly, automobile accidents are generally avoidable, and a personal tragedy that only an asshole would argue about. So let's never consider better hospitals and ambulances, because accident prevention is always best.

 

I mean, for another example, when you get a cavity or abscess from not brushing or flossing thoroughly enough, the proper way to accept responsibility is to refuse all dental care and to die needlessly in agony. Everybody knows that!

 

Sarcasm was noted, the first time around

What Would Kharn Do?


AaronAgassi
Posts: 54
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Now try taking note of my

Now try taking note of my actual intended topic! For that matter, where is the promised activism on this forum?


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
For the record, I am of the

For the record, I am of the opinion that the one who's pregnant - in most cases the woman - should have the executive power in this issue.

 

I.e. it is a woman's issue that I - being a man - do not feel comfortable holding any "opinion" about.

 

My contribution to the problem complex is to make sure that I wear one of those little rubber thingys whenever I send my Little Lord Fountleroy out on cave expeditions.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


AaronAgassi
Posts: 54
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
But what you have just

But what you have just expressed, is an opinion. Furthermore, as regards responsible prophylaxis: http://www.FoolQuest.com/fooltrek_faq/fooltrek_faq_III_basics_b_sex_.htm#alert


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10641
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I've already said my piece

I've already said my piece on abortion. I don't like it. I do have a leg to stand on, but I'm not going to rehash the discussion.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


SapphireMind
SapphireMind's picture
Posts: 73
Joined: 2009-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Catholics don't believe it

Catholics don't believe it starts at ejaculation.  just ftr. 

 

I believe in rolling rights.  In the beginning, the rights all lie with the mother.  As the fetus approaches being able to survive outside the mother's body, their rights should be taken more and more into account.  When viability occurs (23 weeks) the fetus should have as many rights as the mother. 

This argument assumes that the fetus is viable normally, not born with ancephaly (there is no brain apart from a stem) or hydrancephaly (again, no brain but a huge amount of csf) or otherwise incompatible with life.  In cases where the fetus is doomed, honestly, whatever the mother needs to do to get her through it, I really can't argue with.

"Shepherd Book once said to me, 'If you can't do something smart, do something right.'" - Jayne

Personally subverting biological evolution in favor of social evolution every night I go to work!


AaronAgassi
Posts: 54
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I've already

Vastet wrote:
I've already said my piece on abortion. I don't like it. I do have a leg to stand on, but I'm not going to rehash the discussion.
 My first point was simply how, indeed nigh inevitably, you express an opinion in the same breath with swearing off all opinion. For the rest, don't bruise your index finger clicking the link.


AaronAgassi
Posts: 54
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
SapphireMind, do you mean

SapphireMind, do you mean that you are ready to sign my petition?


AaronAgassi
Posts: 54
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline

AaronAgassi
Posts: 54
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Do click the above link:

Do click the above link: When you only see the repressive antirational touchy-feely mendacity spouted by WOLF, perhaps then finally you'll all become angry enough to sign my petition for a good old scientific put up or shut up.  

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10641
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
AaronAgassi wrote:Vastet

AaronAgassi wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I've already said my piece on abortion. I don't like it. I do have a leg to stand on, but I'm not going to rehash the discussion.
 My first point was simply how, indeed nigh inevitably, you express an opinion in the same breath with swearing off all opinion. For the rest, don't bruise your index finger clicking the link.

I'm not going to repeat myself.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


SapphireMind
SapphireMind's picture
Posts: 73
Joined: 2009-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I don't think online

I don't think online petitions do jack nor shit.  I prefer contact with my legislators.


AaronAgassi
Posts: 54
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:AaronAgassi

Vastet wrote:
AaronAgassi wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I've already said my piece on abortion. I don't like it. I do have a leg to stand on, but I'm not going to rehash the discussion.
 My first point was simply how, indeed nigh inevitably, you express an opinion in the same breath with swearing off all opinion. For the rest, don't bruise your index finger clicking the link.

I'm not going to repeat myself.

Have you discussed the content of that link? I must have missed it.


AaronAgassi
Posts: 54
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
SapphireMind wrote:I don't

SapphireMind wrote:

I don't think online petitions do jack nor shit.  I prefer contact with my legislators.

By all means, do phone in to the office of the Surgeon General Regina Benjamin directly. I have. But if you don't mind, then do sign the petition with a comment making a record of your call and telling how it went.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10641
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
AaronAgassi wrote:Vastet

AaronAgassi wrote:

Vastet wrote:
AaronAgassi wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I've already said my piece on abortion. I don't like it. I do have a leg to stand on, but I'm not going to rehash the discussion.
 My first point was simply how, indeed nigh inevitably, you express an opinion in the same breath with swearing off all opinion. For the rest, don't bruise your index finger clicking the link.

I'm not going to repeat myself.

Have you discussed the content of that link? I must have missed it.

The link itself? No. The subject the link is based on? Yes. You missed it. It was probably more than a year ago.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote:

The Doomed Soul wrote:

Marquis wrote:

What is the point you are trying to raise?

 

I believe its "Without religion, Pro-life Atheists have no leg to stand on"

 

... which, i think i agree with

 

I would disagree.

 

"The genetic view takes the position that the creation of a genetically unique individual is the moment at which life begins. This event is often described as taking place at fertilization, thus fertilization marks the beginning of human life. During this developmental event, the genes originating from two sources combine to form a single individual with a different and unique set of genes. One of the most popular arguments for fertilization as the beginning of human life is that at fertilization a new combination of genetic material is created for the first time; thus, the zygote is an individual, unique from all others."

Source

 

I would consider this a pro-life argument that invokes no religion whatsoever.  While the argument has holes, it is not religious based.

 


AaronAgassi
Posts: 54
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Technically, perhaps, the

Technically, perhaps, the above arument only evokes Aristotelian potentiality. But can one call that a leg to stand upon? And indeed, without Teleology, which is Theistic, what becomes of the Aristotelian notions of essence and potentiality?

 

Note, also, typical abuse of the very word: 'life,' such as by implication, to sneak soul and potentiality in via the back door. Literally speaking, if life only means biological activity, then the argument cited above in the previous post, doesn't even argue against abortion at all.

 

Not to mention, incidentally, that life, biological activity, is continuous all throughout the entire process of procreation, generation by generation, actually beginning in the primordial ooze with the transition from prebiotic evolution into biological evolution proper. Semantics aside, conception, so called, actually being no more than the inception of the development of a new individual of the species, is another matter entirely.

 


AaronAgassi
Posts: 54
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:AaronAgassi

Vastet wrote:
AaronAgassi wrote:

Vastet wrote:
AaronAgassi wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I've already said my piece on abortion. I don't like it. I do have a leg to stand on, but I'm not going to rehash the discussion.
 My first point was simply how, indeed nigh inevitably, you express an opinion in the same breath with swearing off all opinion. For the rest, don't bruise your index finger clicking the link.

I'm not going to repeat myself.

Have you discussed the content of that link? I must have missed it.

The link itself? No. The subject the link is based on? Yes. You missed it. It was probably more than a year ago.

Then might I preveail upon you for a link thereto? I wonder if you really even back then already anticipate current events and adress all the points I make. Indeed, that would be most prescient. 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10641
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
You are presuming, somehow,

You are presuming, somehow, that discussing abortion is new? Lol.

It's in the forum somewhere. If I stumble across it I'll post the link, but I'm not going to search for it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


AaronAgassi
Posts: 54
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
No, in relate digression as

No, in related digression as you had mentioned condoms, and I responded with a link.


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist wrote:I

v4ultingbassist wrote:

I would consider this a pro-life argument that invokes no religion whatsoever.  While the argument has holes, it is not religious based.

... but it has nothing to do with abortion, womens dominion, or baby killing.

Great! genetics, cells, uniqueness... every snow flake is unique, doesnt mean i give a shit about rolling them up into a ball and throwing it at some one.

(note to self, hit someone with a fetus-ball)

 

 

The most immediate answer that sprung to my mind was, "So fucking what?"

And THAT i am willing to stand by

What Would Kharn Do?


AaronAgassi
Posts: 54
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Oops, sorry, my edit seems

Oops, sorry, my edit seems to have crossed with your reply.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:... but it has nothing

Quote:

... but it has nothing to do with abortion, womens dominion, or baby killing.

Great! genetics, cells, uniqueness... every snow flake is unique, doesnt mean i give a shit about rolling them up into a ball and throwing it at some one.

(note to self, hit someone with a fetus-ball)

 

 

The most immediate answer that sprung to my mind was, "So fucking what?"

And THAT i am willing to stand by

 

Well I think the argument would be that rights applied to a human would apply here, since the argument is that the genetic code is what defines that thing as a human.  Thus arguments regarding abortion etc can be made. 

 

Quote:

Technically, perhaps, the above arument only evokes Aristotelian potentiality. But can one call that a leg to stand upon? And indeed, without Teleology, which is Theistic, what becomes of the Aristotelian notions of essence and potentiality?

 

Note, also, typical abuse of the very word: 'life,' such as by implication, to sneak soul and potentiality in via the back door. Literally speaking, if life only means biological activity, then the argument cited above in the previous post, doesn't even argue against abortion at all.

 

Not to mention, incidentally, that life, biological activity, is continuous all throughout the entire process of procreation, generation by generation, actually beginning in the primordial ooze with the transition from prebiotic evolution into biological evolution proper. Semantics aside, conception, so called, actually being no more than the inception of the development of a new individual of the species, is another matter entirely.

 

Not really.  The argument would be, simply, that the unique genetic code is what defines something as a 'human' and thus constitutional rights should apply (in the case of abortion, the right to life).  It is strictly a way to argue how constitutional rights could be applied to an unborn baby, and does so by ascribing the definition of a human in the argument.  My point is that it is not a religious argument. 

 

Also, anyone will think that someone's argument that goes against theirs has 'no leg to stand on' since they don't agree with it.  All I am saying is that as far arguments against abortion go, it has a better basis than the religious arguments.

 

Disclaimer:  I do not subscribe to this argument, I just wanted to provide an example of non-religious pro-life argumentation.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
http://www.godlessprolifers.o

AaronAgassi
Posts: 54
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
But v4ultingbassist, the

But v4ultingbassist, the pseudoscientific genetic argument is a religious argument, indeed specifically, the pseudoscientific genetic argument, belongs to the category of long standing traditional slippery obfuscatory religious propaganda well known as: Apologetics.

At face value it may seem perfectly secular, but that interpretation breaks down immediately: Because, if it's the DNA that defines humanity, then your toenail clippings, never mind a living cultured skin graft, are all members of the club! Can that really be what they mean by introducing the pseudoscientific genetic argument? No. When pressed, they will deny it and introduce further qualifiers. Ultimately, the pseudoscientific genetic argument is merely cover for slipping in the soul, essence and potentially, in via the back door, by implication, again to the moment of fertilization or conception.

They talk out of both sides of their mouths. And we ought to see through them.


AaronAgassi
Posts: 54
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

All vague unsupported supposition, unless recognized for what it is: religious innuendo.

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
AaronAgassi

AaronAgassi wrote:

All vague unsupported supposition, unless recognized for what it is: religious innuendo.

 

 

Do you think they're atheists?

 

 

 


AaronAgassi
Posts: 54
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Atheism refers to belief or

Atheism may refer to belief or lack thereof. Thus, given any possibility of doublethink mendacity, of self-deception rather than just bald faced lying, I really cannot say. But the message is clearly not sincerely Atheist. A typical black propaganda opp.

White propaganda is propaganda truthfully representing it's source, as for example, government "information resources," whereas black propaganda is faked, one way or another, in oder to make your enemy look bad or confuse whatever the issue, and grey propaganda is ambiguous as to source.

Which actually brings us neatly back to my intended topic of nominal Atheists so completely taken in and regurgitating doubletalk apologetics.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
1] There's no message that

1] There's no message that is "sincerly atheist" other than saying there exists no Gods

 

2] There's no such thing as a nominal atheist

 

 

 

 

 

 


AaronAgassi
Posts: 54
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:1]

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

1] There's no message that is "sincerly atheist" other than saying there exists no Gods

All manner of positions can be either honest or disingenuous.

Quote:

2] There's no such thing as a nominal atheist

Sure there is. Any semblance whatsoever at all, may be more precisely true or else howsoever qualified.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
AaronAgassi wrote:But

AaronAgassi wrote:

But v4ultingbassist, the pseudoscientific genetic argument is a religious argument, indeed specifically, the pseudoscientific genetic argument, belongs to the category of long standing traditional slippery obfuscatory religious propaganda well known as: Apologetics.

At face value it may seem perfectly secular, but that interpretation breaks down immediately: Because, if it's the DNA that defines humanity, then your toenail clippings, never mind a living cultured skin graft, are all members of the club! Can that really be what they mean by introducing the pseudoscientific genetic argument? No. When pressed, they will deny it and introduce further qualifiers. Ultimately, the pseudoscientific genetic argument is merely cover for slipping in the soul, essence and potentially, in via the back door, by implication, again to the moment of fertilization or conception.

They talk out of both sides of their mouths. And we ought to see through them.

 

Like I just said, you see anything wrong with the argument, and then it needs religion to have a solid ground.  It isn't standing on religion, you are saying that the holes in the argument could be filled by religion to make the argument better, but that is your doing, not theirs.  Their argument, however imperfect, is NOT based on religion.  You just took an example as to why it breaks down, and why it breaks down is not because it invokes the supernatural.

 

 

Because, if it's the DNA that defines humanity, then your toenail clippings, never mind a living cultured skin graft, are all members of the club!

 

In case you were unaware, they actually are a part of you.  That's the argument, those things are unique to you, so they would fall under the category of 'you' and not somebody else.  This is the argument's attempt to differentiate human life.  The problem arises with twins, not parts of your body.


AaronAgassi
Posts: 54
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Be that as it may, what

Be that as it may, what would you admit as an example of implying God whilst pretending not to?


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
You keep invoking god, not

You keep invoking god, not me.  Things can be unique without a deity.  Just because YOU think this argument is a conspiracy to front the religious view of things doesn't mean that it is.


AaronAgassi
Posts: 54
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Then answer my question.

Then answer my question.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Are you retarded?  I can't

Are you retarded?  I can't answer your question.  In order to answer your question I would have to accept your position in this discussion, which I clearly don't.  Actually, my whole point is that god is irrelevant, so your question is too.


AaronAgassi
Posts: 54
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Are you actually claiming

Are you actually claiming that it would be not only illogical, but actually impossible, to imply one thing out of one side of one's mouth, while denying it out if the other?


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
YOU are claiming that the

YOU are claiming that the argument is saying one thing but implying another.  It it entirely YOUR opinion that the implication is even there.  You have not addressed the points I made and instead you are trying to force me into accepting your view that the argument implies god.  I've already said why it doesn't.  You have failed show otherwise and instead are asking me retarded questions.


AaronAgassi
Posts: 54
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Look, you don't accept my

Look, you don't accept my agument, regardless how obvious it sems to me, and so, I fall back upon Socratic Method, checking each claim, each stage of my reasoning with you, one step at a time. And in order to show a particular instance, first I need to establish the generality. For example, it will be difficult to argue that Fred is a Lichtensteinian, if you are convinced that the country of Lichtenstein is entirely mythical to begin with. So please do answer my previous question:

 

Are you actually claiming that it would be not only illogical, but actually impossible, to imply one thing out of one side of one's mouth, while denying it out if the other?


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
AaronAgassi wrote: Are you

AaronAgassi wrote:

 

Are you actually claiming that it would be not only illogical, but actually impossible, to imply one thing out of one side of one's mouth, while denying it out if the other?

 

I'm trying to tell you that that is irrelevant.  "The argument would be, simply, that the unique genetic code is what defines something as a 'human'" is what I said.  How does this invoke god in any way?